All very well, but a fact based analysis of something which can't be measured, such as the way people feel and react to issues, emotions and the fear of being shouted down or as you have done, call it a buzz word of the times? I think that is part of the issue. I expect this will be my last post in this thread as per my last discussion some time ago on similar subjects where certain posters came out of the woodwork throwing accusations and implying other things, because it went against their views
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
I think that if you look at this country's historic immigration (Ireland, Kenya, Pakistan, the Caribbean, etc) the second generation is pretty much British. They rightly maintain pride in their cultural roots but integration was strong and second/third generation immigrants would probably describe themselves as British (or at least British Caribbean, etc).
The problem since NuLab's meddling is that the second generation often still identifies themselves as from their heritage only, or even identifies themselves by their religion. Instead of integrating, in many cases the second and third generations are going to school and hanging out with people purely from their own background.
That's no good for anyone. Fortunately those ridiculous policies have been reversed and hopefully the problem will just go away, but people will always be naturally suspicious of a closed community in that way.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I think that it is valid to raise concerns around cultural impact if you think that those concerns are real. These can be measured though either through reliable polling or where people are claiming that there is an impact on crime through crime data. I am not convinced that either supports the case against immigration but would be interested if anyone has anything that they think shows otherwise. One of the things that I think is interesting is that support for UKIP tends to be strongest in areas of the country with the lowest levels of immigrants.
I think that it is harder to make the case against immigration economically because we have an aging population and immigrants are overwhelmingly net contributors to the economy.
If you want a considered response to your post, prejudging the opinions of others is a bad way to start.
milo
Jack L. Jones
In what way do you think that Labour meddled?
I can't say that I see a strong difference between the generations and those that I do, I would put down to the impact of popular culture rather than the government.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
When we moved to Luton in the 80s from the north the area I live in was mixed. White people, Asians and Caribbean people. Slowly but surely the white people have moved away. Many reasons for this and that's a big discussion in itself. But they have sold up and moved to outskirts of Luton or villages. My kids now have less chance of integrating and only go to school with 98% migrant kids. Fortunately I can afford to move to a more affluent area that has a more mixed area so my kids can grow up knowing people from all sorts of backgrounds. Not all can.
My main point is that integration is two way. You can't mix it with people when they don't want to. You have migrants who don't want to integrate and you get "indigenous" folk who don't want to either. Whose fault is it?
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
"@jdportes: Prime Minister misrepresents official statistics on "new jobs" & foreign workers (again). Me in @thetimes http://t.co/ktrb5hDwGo"
Isn't the main beef with immigration the influx of Eastern European/Portuguese that came over 10+ years ago? It seems like the bulk of the 'change' has been done already, and UKIP have got big after the event. So even if we were to leave the EU, loads of the people who make up this change in people's towns will have now been here long enough to become British Citizens anyway (should we leave the EU), many of them will have kids born here, going to school and in the process of growing up British.
Non-EU migrants have only found it harder and harder to come here over that same period, because the requirements have got tougher and tougher (mainly a political response as their hands are tied re. EU migrants).
So being that the non-EU migrant route has already been alterred to become much more difficult, and the big EU migrant change has already taken place (with the big waves happening a good few years ago) what is it that people want to happen? Send them all back? (don't much like the sound of that, can't see it being a vote winner). Leave the EU AFTER most of the big waves of migration has already occured? That doesn't seem very practical either.
Non-EU migrants have only found it harder and harder to come here over that same period, because the requirements have got tougher and tougher (mainly a political response as their hands are tied re. EU migrants).
So being that the non-EU migrant route has already been alterred to become much more difficult, and the big EU migrant change has already taken place (with the big waves happening a good few years ago) what is it that people want to happen? Send them all back? (don't much like the sound of that, can't see it being a vote winner). Leave the EU AFTER most of the big waves of migration has already occured? That doesn't seem very practical either.
They intentionally increased the rate of immigration to a point where integration was no longer likely.
I've seen the difference (albeit with a pretty small sample size) at our Birmingham factory. There's a marked difference in the way migrant families have or have not integrated over time. We tend to employ a lot of people from the same families so we really so get a good view over the generations.
I'm not sure the phenomena is so visible in London as it's already so mixed. All the areas that used to be associated with a particular group when I grew up are pretty much mixed now.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
The Telegraphs take on the Green Party's plans. Clearly biased but even if it is a semblance of the truth it sounds scary. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...nce-tax-the-Green-Party-plan-for-Britain.html
Under normal circumstances (assuming there's no drop in population in that area) I'd expect the housing gaps in those areas to be filled with a mixed population.
Rather than ask why people move away (everyone's always striving to improve their lives), you should ask why it is those who move in and not someone else.
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
Both are an indication that people naturally want to live around people with a similar culture as them. And that Immigrants aren't as rich alot of the time so move to these areas. That's it in my opinion.
I agree. I don't think that used to be the case though - at least, not past the first generation.
You said something similar yourself in an eariler post, but if we used to have more immigration from commonwealth countries (and, years ago we would have had stronger ties and more influence in those countries), then the immigrants are already integrated, to a certain extent, on arrival. Therefore, I don't think the political party in charge has a lot to do with British influence over commonwealth nations fading over time, along with more immigrants coming from outside of the commonwealth.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Very interesting points...
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
B*stards buggered Brighton, I would have considered voting for them as a protest vote but they are complete and utter nutters. Likely to get back in Brighton because of the student vote.
milo
Jack L. Jones
OK. My understanding of multiculturalism is more in line with the description here
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/
rather than the increase in immigrants that we saw in the first decade of this century.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I've always seen it as being recent immigrants will often move to places that are cheap and move out as they can afford to.
I lived in the east end in the late nineties early 2000s and you saw a lot of older white families moving out to Essex mainly because they had bought their council flat and it was worth a lot more than when they bought it and they thought that they could get a better standard of living further out.
If you look at the history of immigration into the east end of London you see that each grouping settles there and then moves on from the Huguenots (hello Mr Farage), through the Jews, Bangladeshis and more recently Somalis.
My use if the term (possibly incorrectly) is about Labour's intent for groups not to integrate. In fact, as the very opposite if integration. Rate of immigration was merely the method used to cause that lack of integration.
This has been discovered to be a clear tactic by Labour, I can only assume to try and increase their own voter base.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I don't think (maybe naively) that the intention was that groups would not integrate, just that we should try and make it easier for new arrivals.